Endorsements

Editorial: Yes to the CPA - MetroWest Daily News - Thursday, March 23, 2006

The Natick Bulletin and Tab
Natick voters will decide this month on CPA
By Claudia Torrens/ Daily News Staff
Wednesday, March 8, 2006

NATICK -- Supporters, opponents and some as-yet undecided gathered last night at Morse Institute Library to hear what the Community Preservation Act is and why Natick should adopt or reject it.

Proponents of the measure said the CPA will help the town preserve open space and will help make Natick more affordable, without burdening the town's budget.

Opponents said to impose another tax on residents when many other fees increase yearly is not fair, particularly as Natick is becoming increasingly unaffordable for many.

Residents will decide in three weeks, when they vote "yes" or "no" to adopt the CPA in the March 28 town election.

The CPA is a state law that enables towns to generate, through a property tax surcharge, money that must be used to create affordable housing, buy undeveloped land or restore historic buildings.

Question 1 on the ballot proposes a property tax surcharge of 1 percent for Natick, as well as exemptions for low-income families and low- and moderate-income seniors. Exemptions are also available for the first $100,000 of assessed residential property value.

The average Natick homeowner would pay $35 per year if the CPA passes.

Money collected from residents is matched by the state through a statewide surcharge on real estate transactions. The state now provides a 100 percent match, but the percentage could decrease in the future.

"CPA is not Santa Claus, but it is a great motivational tool," said Jason Makofsky of the Natick Community Preservation Alliance. "It will bring people together to look at ways to preserve the community. And the money will always have to be approved by Town Meeting."

Makofsky said the advantage of CPA is that it will allow residents to plan ahead and to set goals for projects worth funding.

He said by dedicating CPA money to affordable housing, the town could work toward the state-mandated 10 percent threshold and fight 40B projects, which allow builders to bypass some local zoning regulations.

Approximately 104 communities in the state have adopted the CPA, he said.

Nancy Farquharson, from the group Natick Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility, said many of those communities are repealing the CPA five years after adopting it.

"I think Natick should learn from their lessons and not make the same mistake," she said.

Farquharson, along with Finance Committee member Cathi Collins, said there are millions of dollars coming in from the Natick Mall to the town's Open Space Fund. The mall and the Cloverleaf 40B project will bring more affordable housing to town.

Farquharson said CPA money cannot be used for maintenance of projects not bought with CPA funds and there is no guarantee that in a few years residents will get matching funds from the state. At the same time, the CPA tax surcharge will go up as taxes increase year after year, she said.

"I am a teacher. My husband is a firefighter. We can afford to live here now. Please don't raise our taxes," she said.

Makofsky said that with approximately a 2.5 percent tax raise annually, the CPA surcharge could probably go up 80 cents every year.

If the state does not match 100 percent in a few years, the best time to adopt the CPA is now, when Beacon Hill is still matching completely, he said.

Some of the projects he mentioned that could be funded with CPA money are: to acquire JJ Lane Park, to rehabilitate the windows of Johnson Elementary School or to restore the historic Eliot Bridge in South Natick.

Farquharson and Collins said many of the projects mentioned don't fall under CPA funding guidelines.

Between 20 and 30 residents asked questions about the exemptions, the tax surcharge and the Community Preservation Committee, the town body that will recommend to Town Meeting how to spend CPA funds.

Resident Jeff Silverstein mentioned a list of towns, including Framingham, that have not supported the measure. "There is not unanimous support for CPA," he said.

Erica Ball, a selectman in the '70s, expressed her support for the measure.

"This is a vehicle to help create affordable housing," she told the audience. "If you turn it down, I don't want to hear you say again that you cannot afford to live in this town."

(Claudia Torrens can be reached at 508-626-3976 or ctorrens@cnc.com)

The Natick Bulletin and Tab
A Moment With... Fred Witte
By Claudia Torrens
Friday, January 13, 2006

In 74 days Natick residents will have to say yes or no to the Community Preservation Act. That state law enables towns to generate, through a property tax surcharge, money that can be used to build affordable housing, buy undeveloped land and maintain historic buildings. Fred Witte, who has just signed on as co-chair of the Natick Community Preservation Alliance, is ready to explain what CPA is to whomever wants to listen. The Natick resident, who is 64, is also running for Town Meeting and is the volunteer coordinator of the Natick Service Council, offered his thoughts during an interview on Monday.

Tell us about what the Natick Preservation Alliance plans to do until election day.

Our main priority is to educate the voters so that when the voter gets to the polls they will make a decision based on as much knowledge as we can get out there. That is our main priority.

How do you plan to do that?

I would like not to comment much on our strategy because there is a group that is not in favor (of CPA) that is being organized so I don’t want to say much. But the usual stuff that you do in a campaign, like mailing ... We have only had a short meeting, a group of seven. [Jan. 11] we are meeting with all the people who have said they would help with the campaign. It will be basically about introducing and get to know each other.

How much will CPA cost to Natick homeowners if it is approved by the citizens in March?

The benefit product outweighs the cost; the cost being for the average homeowner of about $30 a year. CPA will be in existence for five years. At the end of five years, there will be another opportunity to vote again. We say the average homeowner will be hit with 30 bucks a year and that money will be matched by the state. And it could be for preservation, open space and affordable housing.

I have heard people say that there is already money for preservation, affordable housing...

Many projects that have come before Town Meeting have not found enough funding. This will provide additional funds above the operating budgets used for this projects. When the projects go through the Community Preservation Committee - which will be made up of different people from different town functions, like maybe someone from Parks of Recreation, or the Historic Commission - proposals will made to them. Then they will review those proposals and recommend them to Town Meeting, which then has the opportunity to say yes or no to what the committee submits. So there is quite a bit of opportunity for discussions before anything gets spent. The state is going to match dollar per dollar. I think it is a no-brainer. Currently the state is matching 100 percent as more towns adopt CPA that could go down, to 50 or 30 percent.

How do you feel about Natick residents passing this measure?

We feel optimistic. It is not an easy thing for people to understand. Some say it is just another tax just as people say the pay-as-you-throw is another tax or transportation to schools is another tax. Trying to explain CPA to people is not quite as easy. That’s why we feel it is an important thing to educate so when people make the decision they just don’t base it on the negative, but they will do something positive.

Just as you said, there is a group that is being organized that opposes CPA. What was your reaction when you heard it was being formed? Did you think about doing a forum or event together to explain both sides of the story?

That is an interesting question and I don’t know if I have an answer for it. I have never run anything like this before so I am learning as I go from people who have been on the field and have obviously done this before. Some have other issues that they are working on and want to try to separate themselves from this. Sure you understand that. This is a free country, I know people from that group very well, know them personally, and I understand what they are saying. I and the Natick CPA Alliance have a strong sense of community which is why we feel CPA is good for Natick. I wanted to say too that there are exemptions for CPA that can be applied for or are automatic. If the concern of the other group is the little guy, exemptions will most likely eliminate those people from the calculation, low-income and seniors over 60.

The Boston Globe | Globe West
Debate over CPA decision heats up
Preservation funds at issue in vote
By Jennifer Fenn Lefferts, Globe Correspondent | January 12, 2006

When Fred Witte wears his ''CPA is Good for Natick" button around town, most people think he's referring to a certified public accountant.

The same goes for Nanci Farquharson when she talks about her opposition to the CPA.

What they're really talking about is the Community Preservation Act, a state law that allows residents to approve a surcharge on property taxes to create a fund that can be used to preserve open space, build affordable housing, and save historic buildings.

With the holidays over and the election about two months away, the campaign for and against setting up a community preservation fund in town is starting to heat up. But it appears both sides have their work cut out for them.

''I suspect a lot of people don't understand CPA," said Jay Ball, the chairman of the Natick Board of Selectmen.

Maria Waller, president of the League of Women Voters of Natick, said, ''It's something of interest to a lot of people in town. But for most people, it's probably not something they've thought about much."

The league is sponsoring two forums in early March, each of which will include a panel of guests representing both sides of the issue, Waller said.

Meanwhile, activists will be working hard to spread their point of view.

''Our main initiative is to make sure the Natick voters are as informed as possible about what the CPA is all about," said Witte, the cochairman of the Natick Community Preservation Alliance, which formed just over a year ago to push the ballot question.

The group was scheduled to hold an organizational meeting last night to talk strategy and get volunteers ''fired up," Witte said.

Farquharson, the CPA opponent, is doing her best to get the word out, too.

''The biggest job of our committee is to educate the public," said Farquharson, who recently formed a group to oppose the proposal called Natick Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility.

Town Meeting members voted in October to put a Community Preservation Act question on the ballot in the town elections on March 28.

The question asks for a 1 percent surcharge, with exemptions for low- and moderate-income seniors. Supporters say the tax increase would cost the typical taxpayer about $30 a year.

The state will match the amount Natick spends from its fund, dollar for dollar.

The CPA alliance has a website, www.natickcpa.org, while Farquharson's group is in the process of creating one. Both are just starting to raise money, write brochures, and target meetings where they will speak out.

Supporters say it's worth the investment at a time when Natick has great needs, including, for example, a need for additional affordable housing.

Ball, who supports the CPA, said families of lifelong Natick residents can no longer live in town because homes are too expensive.

''That's a need we're trying to fill and that's the No. 1 value in the CPA," Ball said.

Opponents say the town has greater needs that can't be funded through the Community Preservation Act, and those should be met first.

Cathleen Collins, a Finance Committee member and an opponent of the CPA, cited the need for a new high school and senior/community center as examples.

''If we didn't have a lean budget, I wouldn't be so worried about it," Collins said. ''But we do have these other problems and the goals of the CPA aren't at the top of the list."

MetroWest Daily News
Spending Money to make money
By Jennifer Kavanaugh / Daily News Staff
Wednesday, November 9, 2005

Several years of planning have passed since Southborough residents agreed to tax themselves more for the sake of community preservation, and now the town has its choice of projects that range from affordable housing to stone walls for recreation fields.

The town has money to spend because voters OK'd the town's involvement in the Community Preservation Act in which the state matches, dollar for dollar, the money the town raises for its preservation fund.

With voter approval, cities and towns can collect up to a 3 percent property tax surcharge to pay for affordable housing, open space and historic preservation projects.

In Southborough, voters approved a 1 percent surcharge three years ago, but it had to establish an oversight committee and create a game plan before it could get into the project-funding business. The state recently sent the town $202,990, which roughly matches the community preservation taxes the town billed last fiscal year.

"I can't imagine anywhere else where you can get 100 percent return on your money," said Frederica Gillespie, chairwoman of Southborough's Community Preservation Committee. The town will soon have public hearings to look at seven proposals to spend CPA money. "I think the benefits to the town will be huge."

Roughly 100 Massachusetts communities have elected to participate in the program, and yesterday voters headed to the polls in Waltham, Watertown, Weymouth and Northampton to decide CPA measures. More towns will consider it in elections next spring, and the 5-year-old program is selling itself, said Katherine Roth, assistant director of the Community Preservation Coalition in Boston.

"I think communities are looking around and are seeing other communities passing it, and seeing what they're doing with it," Roth said. She said communities have been doing everything from funding large-scale projects to preservation of historic town documents. "It's kind of a demonstration effect."

MetroWest has several CPA communities, including Southborough, Sudbury, Holliston, Ashland, Weston and Hopkinton. That represents a wide range in terms of median family incomes, from Ashland's $77,611 to Weston's $181,041, according to the 2000 U.S. Census.

But several MetroWest communities have median family incomes well below $77,000 -- and none of them got CPA state matching funds this year. Those include Hudson, Framingham and Marlborough. Some observers see a correlation between community wealth and CPA benefits.

"It's that aphorism, money goes to money," said Paul Blazar, Hudson's executive assistant.

Hudson may be looking to follow that money in the near future. Efforts to pass the CPA failed a few years ago, but officials are considering taking another shot, and one that would give taxpayers a more pain-free introduction to the program.

Blazar said officials are exploring the possibility of using proceeds from a pending sale of town land to a shopping center developer to subsidize a 1 percent surcharge for five years to get the state matching funds without hitting taxpayers at first. He said an "anti-tax sentiment" seemed to have killed an earlier CPA effort, and that this approach could get taxpayers to try it for five years.

"It seems about as painless a way there is," Blazar said.

This fall, several communities have been considering preservation funds, with varied results. On Monday, Millis Town Meeting agreed to postpone a CPA article until spring to allow time for more study. Natick Town Meeting supported the proposal last week, setting up a townwide vote in March.

"I can't say what voters in Natick will be thinking in March," said Josh Ostroff, outgoing chairman of the Natick Community Preservation Alliance. "If we have 10,000 voters, there will be 10,000 reasons."

Ostroff said he hopes Natick voters will seize on the opportunity to take care of some needs and help preserve the town's affordability. He does not see community preservation as the province of the wealthy, and said the act includes protections such as exemptions for elderly and low-income people.

"It's more of a matter of communities taking control of their destinies," Ostroff said.

Southborough's Gillespie also disputes the notion that the state matching funds disproportionately benefit wealthier towns. More than household income, she said, the driving factor appears to be the development booms taking place in several of the communities.

Communities undergoing dramatic transformations -- and see their open space and historical charm evaporating -- have embraced the act most speedily, Gillespie said. She could take a map of the state's CPA communities, she said, and be able to draw in highways like I-495 and I-91 according to the cities and towns that have adopted it, and are booming because of their highway proximity.

"I don't think it's just the rich towns that are adopting it," Gillespie said. "I think there's more than that going on."

(Jennifer Kavanaugh can be reached at 508-626-4416 or jkavanau@cnc.com)

The Boston Globe | Globe West
Preservation fund on the ballot in Natick
By Jennifer Fenn Lefferts, Globe Correspondent
Sunday, November 6, 2005

Natick could protect open space, offer housing for low-income people, or save historic buildings if it sets up a community preservation fund. But residents would also have higher tax bills.

That's what voters will be weighing when they go to the polls in March, now that Town Meeting has put the issue on the ballot.

Supporters and opponents say they are looking ahead to a hard-fought campaign.

''This is going to be a big educational campaign," said Martin Kessel, chairman of the Natick Open Space Advisory Council, which supports the proposal.

Under the state Community Preservation Act, communities can place a surcharge on property tax bills to collect funds that can be used for preservation projects. The state matches whatever is spent from the preservation fund, dollar for dollar.

Town Meeting voted Tuesday to approve sending such a proposal to voters in the March 28 town election.

The proposal would place a 1 percent surcharge on property tax bills, which means the annual cost would be about $30 per household, according to the Natick Community Preservation Alliance. Eligible low-income residents and seniors would be exempt from the surcharge.

The vote does not necessarily mean that most Town Meeting members support the proposal, only that they think voters should have the final say, said Joshua Ostroff, a resident who has been pushing for creation of the fund. He has already formed an alliance to campaign for it.

''I don't look at it as an endorsement of the CPA but an endorsement of democracy," Ostroff said.

He added that supporters will gather over the next three weeks to start strategizing, and he suspects opponents will do the same.

Ostroff, who is running for selectman next year, said he wants to get more people involved in the committee because he will have his own campaign to run.

Cathleen Collins, a member of the town's CPA Study Committee, said she will do whatever it takes to defeat the measure.

Collins said she was surprised Town Meeting voted to put the proposal on the ballot, and now there is little time to organize opposition.

She said she is just starting to talk to residents about forming a ballot committee and how to raise funds.

''I think that the proponents are way ahead already," she said, noting that the Natick Community Preservation Alliance, of which Ostroff is a member, already has a website and base of supporters.

''I'm hoping there will be a committee formed [to oppose the proposal], and I plan to oppose it in any way I can. I hope we can provide some context for voters. This is a very emotional issue," she said.

So far, the alliance has raised $500.

More than 100 communities in the state have adopted the act, including Wellesley, Needham, Wayland, and Sudbury.

Last April, Town Meeting voted to establish a CPA Study Committee to report back to Town Meeting in the fall. The committee recommended adopting such a fund. A Town Meeting vote was needed to place the measure before voters.

Supporters like Kessel said the proposal would provide a way for the town to plan and devote resources to areas that are often overlooked.

He said he hopes residents can look beyond the small tax increase and focus on how much the town could benefit.

''The whole thing we want people to understand is the visionary approach," Kessel said.

But opponents say Natick has many projects coming up that should take priority over open space and affordable housing, especially when the developers of the Natick Mall are expected to pay millions, in exchange for approval of an expansion project, in those areas.

Town officials recently prepared a report outlining $138 million in capital improvements that should be made over the next several years.

Large projects on the list include major renovations to Natick High School or the construction of a new school, and the construction of a senior/community center.

MetroWest Daily News
Natick struggles to meet housing mandate
By Claudia Torrens / Daily News Staff
Sunday, November 6, 2005

NATICK -- The last time Natick built an affordable housing unit was 16 years ago, when the Housing Authority was issued permits to build units at the West Hill Park complex, on Mill Street, and the William Coolidge House.

Although there are projects under way that include affordable housing, things don't look promising for the town as it tries to reach the state- mandated 10 percent level of affordable units.

"I don't see Natick reaching that percent, at least for a long time," said Planning Board member George Richards. "Every time you increase the density, you increase the number of affordable housing units you need....There is a possibility of catching up, however, with 40Bs with rental units and all those units counting as affordable housing."

According to the town's housing plan, Natick has 685 affordable units that count toward the state goal. That's 5.14 percent of the 13,337 total housing units in town. Natick still needs 648 affordable units to reach 10 percent.

But why hasn't the town built housing for low to moderate income people since 1989?

Because many homes were built in town before Chapter 40B became a state mandate and now it is hard for the town to catch up the number of affordable units needed, said longtime Planning Board member Bob Eisenmenger.

"We have 1,800 units at Kendall Crossings and we have no credit for any of those. Not for a single unit," Eisenmenger said. "Other towns that have fewer units have a lesser burden."

Approximately 31 percent of Natick's housing stock was built between 1940 and 1959, according to the town's housing plan. Twenty-seven percent of the stock was built in 1939 or earlier.

"Natick has less new housing than other communities with only 7 percent of the housing stock built between 1990 and March 2000," says the report, which was created by former Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian.

Many affordable housing units don't count toward the state's goal, said Julian Munnich, a member of the Planning Board.

"So much of affordable housing is not recognized by the state as 40B," said Munnich. "We have hundreds of units that are affordable but don't meet the state criteria."

Designated affordable units need to be financed a very specific way and need to be deed restricted, among other conditions.

"The state does not recognize the good effort of communities to create affordable housing," added Munnich.

Natick has Section 8 voucher housing, which means affordable housing funded by the government. According to Edward Santos, director of the Natick Housing Authority, fewer than 100 units in Natick are Section 8. They don't count toward the state's 10 percent goal.

The Cedar Terrace complex is the project in town with the largest number of affordable housing units, 260. Sherwood Village, on Mill Street, which offers housing for seniors, follows with 236 units. The rest of housing for senior and low to moderate income residents is scattered around town in projects that range from three to 52 units.

But a new 40B project coming into town could help increase the town's low income housing stock.

The project, called Hunters Hill, consists of 112 units, 28 of which will be affordable. Developer Trask Inc., from Southborough, still needs state approval and will present its project to the Board of Selectmen on Dec. 5. The 40B would be located at the intersection of South Main Street and Hunters Lane on 13.9 acres. The site has five single-family homes, two barns and three sheds, all of which would be removed.

"Trask is coming first to the Board of Selectmen as a courtesy," said Community Development Director Patrick Reffett.

Two other proposed 40B projects are in court and a third is at the state's Housing Appeals Committee.

Another measure that, for some, could help Natick deal with its lack of affordable housing is the Community Preservation Act. Town Meeting this week decided to put the CPA to voters in March 2006.

Communities that pass a ballot measure in favor of the CPA impose a property tax surcharge, ranging from 0.5 percent to 3 percent. Money collected must be spent to buy undeveloped land, build affordable housing or preserve historic buildings and land. The state then would match the community's contribution.

"When a community participates in CPA they have more options to develop affordable housing solutions," said Town Meeting member Josh Ostroff. "CPA gives more leverage and flexibility. It also helps preserve the affordable housing that we have."

(Claudia Torrens can be reached at 508-626-3976 or ctorrens@cnc.com)

MetroWest Daily News
CPA to go before residents
By Claudia Torrens / Daily News Staff
Wednesday, November 2, 2005

NATICK -- After more than two hours of passionate discussion in the high school auditorium last night, Town Meeting voted to bring the Community Preservation Act in front of voters.

Residents will decide whether they want to adopt the tax-increasing measure at the March 2006 town election.

Although many Town Meeting members expressed opposition to adopting the CPA, some said residents should have the chance to vote on it. Others reminded the town of the benefits the CPA could bring Natick.

"Now we can finally do something to try to solve our problems on affordable housing," Town Meeting member Erica Ball said before the show of hands vote. "Now that we have that opportunity are we going to turn our backs to it? Let's take this avenue. It is here for you."

Communities that pass a ballot measure in favor of the CPA impose a property tax surcharge, ranging from 0.5 percent to 3 percent. The CPA Study Committee has recommend Natick's surcharge be set at 1 percent.

Money collected must be spent to buy undeveloped land, build affordable housing or preserve historic buildings and land. The state then would match the community's contribution.

If Natick residents adopt the CPA, they would pay an additional $30 to $35 per year on their tax bills. Seniors and low-income residents are exempt from the tax, but they have to do the appropriate filing to be exempted.

Town Meeting members who opposed the measure said the town faces a $138 million capital plan that includes projects that could be paid by overrides. With athletic fees, busing fees and pay-as-you-throw fees, among others, to add a CPA fee would be a burden to taxpayers, some said.

Discussion also centered on what would happen if the state could not match 100 percent of Natick's contribution.

"If we send this to the voters, we are sending a message that we support CPA," said Town Meeting member Nanci Farquharson.

Selectmen Chairman Jay Ball did not agree.

"If you support the positive motion, you are allowing the public to decide for themselves whether they want or not to support this," he told the audience.

Some Town Meeting members said the town already will get millions from the Natick Mall to preserve open space. The mall will give the town $6.2 million in floor area ratio payments for both its residential and commercial additions, Town Administrator Phil Lemnios said after consulting with Planning Board members. FAR payments will go to the town's Open Space Fund.

The Finance Committee had voted to refer the article back to the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee because of the many budget constraints and projects the town faces.

Selectmen had voted against recommending to Town Meeting to bring the CPA in front of voters.

A Town Meeting member who opposed last night's measure said the question should be put in front of voters through a citizens petition.

Voters who supported the CPA last night said the town needs to take advantage of the funds to preserve the town's neighborhoods and avoid future affordable-housing projects.

"CPA could be used to extend the affordable restrictions so low-income families are not forced to move out," Town Meeting member Laura Senier said.

Town Meeting also voted in favor of having selectmen submit a warrant article for the 2006 annual Town Meeting specifying the size and composition of the Community Preservation Committee. Selectmen would also need to convene a public hearing to obtain residents' comments on the issue no later than Jan. 30.

Town Meeting members expressed the necessity of having clear language when the question appears on the ballot and have a process of public meetings to explain the CPA to residents.

(Claudia Torrens can be reached at 508-626-3976 or ctorrens@cnc.com)

* The Natick Community Preservation Alliance does not endorse the opinions expressed in letters opposing the CPA, but provides them in the interest of fairness.

Letter: Defeat the Community Preservation Act

Saturday, March 25, 2006

We've been told of all the other communities which have passed Community Preservation Act -- here's some information the alliance has neglected to share: 42 cities and towns have defeated the act including our neighbors, Framingham, Sherborn, Dover, Hudson, and Berlin. The cities of Boston and Watertown also saw the pitfalls of act and defeated it in 2001.

The Community Preservation Act is not free money from the state. There is no guarantee of matching funds past October 2006. According to a bulletin distributed by the Department of Revenue to all mayors, selectmen and other municipal financial departments, the bulletin states: The duration of the matching funds continuing to equal 100 percent of the surcharge revenues is uncertain. This is quite different than the exaggerated guaranteed date of 2009 that the Alliance has stated. If the act is passed we are locked into this additional tax -- like it or not -- for five years. Once passed, it cannot go before the voters, for five years!

Before voting March 28, be sure you know the facts about Community Preservation Act and not the wants and desires of the alliance. The alliance consists of individuals from departments that will personally benefit from the slush fund the act creates; they're willing to tell you anything you want to hear in order to pass this tax.

Unfortunately, they're not telling you the truth.

Please vote "No" on Question 1 on March 28 and join the other communities around Massachusetts who have made the right decision.

PAUL HERSON, Natick

[top of page]

Letter: Who needs the CPA?

Friday, March 24, 2006

Why do we need the Community Preservation Act? Who needs a special fund to save open space that helps provide clean air and good clean water? I You hear opponents say we can do that within our current budget while in the same breath saying we can’t afford the CPA. Hasn’t anyone read the papers?

Our town budget is stretched thin; what makes anyone think for a minute that the town will suddenly see the light and do what they haven’t been able to do in the 40 years I have lived here?

Others say why can’t the town band together and do it without the CPA?

Again, the town has not, and in reality will not do it. It is like saying why should we have social security as a safety net, when all people have to do is save for their retirement. Let’s get real!

It takes commitment and planning; it takes a dedicated group made up of the various boards mandated for the CPA Committee to look at the big picture and plan for the future. What has using only our town budget done for the elderly or for families that can’t afford to stay in Natick for the last 20 years? Certainly not anything near what the CPA can do.

As a Natick taxpayer, I don’t want to pay 100 percent of the cost of maintaining Natick’s historic character when investing in things that are important like clean water, green space and recreation. I want to get the same benefits I have watched other communities get by taking things out of the budget that the CPA can pay for, and using that freed-up money for the other important things the town needs.

I want to see my money leveraged with the 100 percent match the state pays, and so what if it goes down to 85 percent in a few years? It’s still one heck of a deal on my investment and the state isn’t going to close the Registry of Deeds, source of the money. Nor can a governor or the legislature fool with CPA funding when over 100 communities have already adopted it.

A CPA opponent said that the CPA is like choosing a big screen TV when you need to repair the roof. I think the comparison is more like choosing to maintain the outside of your home, including the yard, to keep your investment in good shape and holding its value.

The character of our town is what keeps our property values so high and whether we want to admit it or not, our homes are one of the biggest investments we make in our lifetimes, and when they appreciate, we reap extraordinary benefits.

I have watched community after community — and often, the same communities — leverage their CPA funding in amazing ways. The 100 percent match of state dollars is used to match other state and federal grant monies, making the taxpayer return on investment a 4 to 1, and sometimes even a 5 to 1, match. Where else can you get a 400 percent or higher return on your investment?

It is about time Natick gets on board to get their share.

I have also been at other town meetings, where I have seen the CPA in action. Particularly of interest is the ability to preserve land that purifies our water supplies, and even repairs historic dams (these days, they are mostly “historic,” most being built before the turn of the century). Just one threatened breach in the South Natick Dam, and the CPA would pay for itself a hundred times over.

Despite the town’s stated commitment to affordable housing, how much affordable housing has the town produced? Instead, we are being forced to accept super-dense 40B developments, with only a percentage of affordable units whose affordability expires in 25 years or less, leaving us with an even greater susceptibility to additional dense 40B developments.

If you don’t think 40Bs affect you now, just ask the folks in neighborhoods who are watching nearby yards being replaced with densely packed buildings and parking lots. Ask them how real the threat is. And talk about being fiscally foolish. Wait until the children who move in enter the school system.

Sure, the state is promising to give us a meager pittance to help with each child that enters the school system from these projects. But how long do we think that will last — Until the next administration?

The town is looking at purchasing/leasing the Speen Street armory land. The CPA can be used to acquire AND develop it, at half (or less) of the cost to the taxpayers. The taxpayers have to pay for it one way or another. Why not pay for it with CPA funds and a matching grant — potentially reducing Natick taxpayer’s cost by 75 percent?

How about the new senior center? Did any forward-thinking folks think about whether the CPA funds could be used to purchase multi-purpose land on which a senior center could be built, with some active recreation land and passive recreation/open space set aside on the same parcel, at a tremendous savings?

No, let’s just pay for the whole thing out of Natick taxpayer pockets instead.

On balance, the CPA is really “Good for Natick.” When you go to the polls on March 28th, vote “Yes” on “Question 1” and show that you agree.

Irene Del Bono, Natick

[top of page]

Letter: Fierce competition for money

Friday, March 24, 2006

On March 28, Natick residents will vote on the CPA.The CPA is a smart way to supplement our overburdened town budget at a minimal cost to homeowners and with the assistance of state matching funds.

The opponents of the CPA state that it would be better to reject it and allow these projects to be funded through “normal budgeting processes.”This claim ignores two critical facts: first, that the town budget is strained to the point where these projects could never be considered; and second, that CPA expenditures are, in fact, subject to the normal budgeting process.

The town’s budget is about $94 million. When you subtract off the top everything that is mandatory (e.g., debt service, providing our municipal employees with health insurance, financing our schools, DPW, police, and fire departments), that leaves about $8 million of discretionary funds. The competition for this pot of money is fierce. Affordable housing, historic restoration, protection of open space, and parks and recreation don’t stand a chance.

If the CPA passes, the town will appoint a Community Preservation Committee, comprising five to nine members.This committee will solicit proposals, hold public hearings, and forward recommendations for CPA expenditures to the Selectmen, the Finance Committee, and Town Meeting for review.

Town Meeting retains the right to debate and make final decisions about appropriations, just as they do now.

The CPA is a smart way to fund projects that we need to accomplish, and would have no other means to do so.

Over 100 municipalities have already adopted the CPA. I urge you to vote YES on Question 1 in Natick on March 28.

Laura Senier, Natick

[top of page]

Letter: The real meaning of fiscal responsibility

Friday, March 24, 2006

As Natick voters go to the polls on Tuesday to decide on the Community Preservation Act, please consider the real meaning of fiscal responsibility.

The CPA asks voters to increase their own taxes by a modest amount for the benefit of all, using a proven system with built-in accountability and oversight, bringing in outside funds for worthy projects for which future generations will salute the voters of 2006.

The CPA appeals to the best in us, and if the majority votes for the CPA, it will work for Natick.

Please look ahead to a better future for Natick and vote Yes on the CPA on Tuesday, March 28.

Eric Ruben, Natick

[top of page]

Letter: Natick needs tools for future

Friday, March 24, 2006

Hopefully by now, every voter in Natick has had a chance to learn about the Community Preservation Act, which will be on the ballot this Tuesday, March 28. If Natick voters decide to adopt this state law, we will join over 100 cities and towns that are already reaping the benefits that the CPA can bestow.

This law would create a dedicated revenue stream of nearly $1 million per year for those worthy projects that nonetheless are often pushed aside by more immediate needs such as police, fire, schools and snow plowing. And thanks to a state trust fund that will match every dollar raised locally for at least the next few years, our money will go twice as far.

The CPA was created six years ago by our legislators who had the foresight to understand that a community needs more than just the bare necessities like plowed roads to be a truly great place to live and work. Communities need the tools to enable and encourage residents to engage in longterm planning to preserve our historic treasures, to maintain economic diversity and prevent gentrification in our town, to control sprawl and provide enhanced recreation and open space facilities.

Even though the CPA, if enacted in Natick, would represent less than one percent of our town budget, have no doubt that many great things could be accomplished. I urge you to vote yes for the CPA this Tuesday, and take control of the future of Natick.

JASON MAKOFSKY, Natick

[top of page]

* The Natick Community Preservation Alliance does not endorse the opinions expressed in letters opposing the CPA, but provides them in the interest of fairness.

Letter: CPA is not right for Natick

Friday, March 24, 2006

As chairman of Natick Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility, I feel the need to respond to Eric Ruben's letter in the MetroWest Daily News ("Fiscal responsibility and the CPA," March 22). I will take the blame for the lack of filing of reports. These reports are filed as of today. I resent Mr. Ruben's attack of our organization, however; he pointed to some misinformation, which has been corrected on our Web site. I admitted to inadvertently making a human error and fixed it.

Mr. Ruben should take his own advice, however, and look at the fallacies the CPA Alliance has put before the town of Natick. One project the Alliance lists, historically correct windows for the Johnson School, is not even being considered by the School Committee . CPA funds can not legally pay for multi-turf fields at the high school as recommended by the Alliance, as the high school fields were not purchased with CPA funds. (* read the CPA response below)

When the Alliance was questioned about some of their "Wish List" projects at the March 7th forum, their response was, "Others are doing it, why can't we? What's the worst thing that will happen? One of the selectman goes to jail?" Is this who you want to decide where your money goes?

Think long term Natick - rising bus fees, athletic fees, trash fees, a new high school, a new senior center, covering our operating expenses. Does CPA really fit into this list of necessities? Vote "No" on March 28th to protect your pocketbook and preserve the integrity of our community.

NANCI FARQUHARSON, Natick

* CPA response: The text of the Community Preservation Act states that CPA funds can be used to develop recreational facilities on land that has been purchased with CPA funds. However the Act has been interpreted to permit recreation facilities to be developed on any Town land, whether or not purchased with CPA funds. We've heard this from representatives of the state Department of Revenue, the Community Preservation Coalition, and the City of Newton.

[top of page]

Editorial: Yes to the CPA

MetroWest Daily News - Thursday, March 23, 2006

The notion that government should be "proactive" instead of "reactive" has nearly reached the status of cliche, heard often in the wake of rhetorical questions like, "Why didn't we buy that farm before the developers scooped it up?" and "Why did we let that historical building fall into disrepair?" and "Why don't we have enough athletic fields for all these kids to play on?"

But the oft-heard complaint is nonetheless true, especially in growing, changing communities like those in MetroWest. If we don't plan for the future, we'll run short of the amenities critical to the quality of life in the towns we love.

That idea of stewardship of community assets is at the heart of the Community Preservation Act. It identifies specific areas too often shortchanged in the struggle to balance municipal budgets -- open space, affordable housing, recreation and historic preservation -- and creates a revenue stream and a decision-making mechanism that allow communities to take steps now that will pay off for generations to come.

Natick is the latest MetroWest community to consider the CPA. Voters will be asked to approve the measure in the town election on Tuesday, March 28.

The CPA is not an easy sell in Natick. Unlike some other towns, Natick has money in its open space account, contributed by developers as part of the permitting process. Developers are also adding affordable housing, mostly through the Chapter 40B process.

But squeezing developers isn't planning. Chapter 40B requires the town accept three market-rate housing units for every affordable one -- and what the developer and state law consider "affordable" might not be the housing Natick needs.

Under the CPA, a small property tax surcharge, matched by the state, creates a fund for the future. A committee, mostly comprised of representatives of town boards, solicits proposals and makes recommendations to Town Meeting, which must sign off on all spending of CPA funds. That process ensures an orderly, proactive approach to preserving town assets and preparing for the future.

Natick has great assets to preserve for a bright future. The Community Preservation Act is an invaluable tool Natick should put to use. We recommend a "YES" vote on March 28.

[top of page]

Letter: Fiscal responsibility and the CPA

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

As Natick voters go to the polls on Tuesday to decide on the Community Preservation Act, please consider the real meaning of fiscal responsibility. The CPA asks voters to increase their own taxes by a modest amount for the benefit of all, using a proven system with built-in accountability and oversight, bringing in outside funds for worthy projects for which future generations will salute the voters of 2006. The CPA appeals to the best in us, and if the majority votes for the CPA, it will work for Natick.

The committee formed to oppose the CPA, Natick Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility, is appealing to voters' self-interest and is encouraging people to "vote no" with lawn signs and flyers. That's fair, and it's part of the political process.

Yet they gave false information on their Web site (natickcfr.com) that contributions to their political committee were tax deductible, until I challenged them to explain themselves at a public forum on March 7th. At that time they said that they had registered as a non-profit corporation, which is a misuse of IRS regulations. And they have now missed two filing deadlines for campaign finance reports, on January 20th and March 20th. This is fiscal responsibility?

Please look ahead and vote "Yes" on the CPA on Tuesday, March 28.

ERIC RUBEN, Natick

[top of page]

Letter: Advantages of the CPA

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

The CPA is an appealing solution that will give Natick control over the development and availability of affordable housing. Developers do not care about those who cannot afford "McMansions" or "McCondos." They don't care about the difference in quality of life between a neighborhood of homes and a building full of condos.

Allowing developers to "solve" this problem for us by constructing housing under Chapter 40B doesn't begin to address the larger problem of affordability. Rather, it adds to the problem by crowding our schools, stressing roads and infrastructure, and turning the terrible traffic along our main roads into a nightmare.

There is no requirement for developers to work with the town to plan carefully for open space and maintaining our town's character. Plus, Chapter 40B doesn't promise to keep the units affordable -- restrictions are in effect for only a few years after construction, and may be done away with entirely if the developer pays the loan back early, which would return any affordable units to market rate units.

I firmly believe that those who take the time to read the facts about the CPA will agree that this is a wonderful chance for our community to preserve its natural strengths, developing its promise with control and caution. I urge you to vote YES on March 28.

KAREN SCHLOSBERG, Natick

[top of page]

* The Natick Community Preservation Alliance does not endorse the opinions expressed in letters opposing the CPA, but provides them in the interest of fairness.

Letter: Natick doesn't need the CPA

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

This March 28 there will be a question on our ballot: the CPA, the Community Preservation Act. I politely request that you vote against it. My understanding is there are three aspects of this act: open space, affordable housing and historical properties. Call it an act, a fee, a tax; either way it's more money out of your pocket. You already pay school athletic fees, bus fees, trash bag fees, what next, the air we breathe? This vote, as all votes, is very important in the next few years. You will have to make tough decisions.

Open space: The Natick Conservation Committee and the open space fund sit on millions of dollars. These monies can be used for open space, in addition, the suggested 30 to 35 dollars per year which this will cost does not include money for maintenance for those properties. CPA monies cannot be used for this. That money will have to come from the taxpayer. In addition, businesses will pay $195 per year, that will probably get passed on to the consumer.

So, that supposed $30 to $35 is not a true figure.

Affordable housing: The state demands on what our town's percentage must be affordable housing and poor development planning should not be placed on the taxpayer to fix it.

Historical properties: State and federal grant monies as well as private and corporate fund-raising could be done to serve this issue.

There is not a faucet of taxpayers' money that you just turn on when you choose to. They throw the tea in the harbor for a reason. Sometimes you have to make do with what you have. You cannot live beyond your means. Please vote against the CPA.

JOHN CONNOLLY, Natick

[top of page]

Letter: CPA is good for Natick seniors

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Of special concern to those of us who care about Natick’s seniors is a special feature of the proposed Community Preservation Act that allows those over 65 with limited income ($58,000 for a household of two and $65,000 for four) to be relieved of any obligation to pay the estimated $35 per household the CPA will add to the average tax bill. Of the over 100 communities that have already adopted the CPA, we have heard of no instances of seniors being hurt by the law.

Among the 483 senior households (of a total of over 13,000 homes in Natick) that applied for an exemption in the last year (low-income, veteran, disabled, etc.), by law all have to make formal application every tax year. Thus eligible seniors will be presented with a new exemption option on a standard form, should the CPA pass. But it is hardly one different from all the others they are offered.

In order to ensure seniors are made aware of their rights, the assessor’s office, Senior Center, Morse Institute and Service Council all make it their business to assist in their taking advantage of every possible means at their disposal to minimize the tax consequences of living in Natick. Notices, personal counseling and newsletter have done the job before and will again.

Seniors need not fear the tax consequences of the CPA. Indeed, as a means to create affordable senior housing among others, the CPA is well worth the effort of applying for and enjoying an annual tax exemption.

PETER GOLDEN, Natick

[top of page]

* The Natick Community Preservation Alliance does not endorse the opinions expressed in letters opposing the CPA, but provides them in the interest of fairness.

Letter: Say No to CPA and Yes to fiscal integrity

Friday, March 17, 2006

To the Editor:

A stranger walks up to you on the street and asks you for $175. What would you do? In addition to being rightfully suspicious, wouldn't you ask "what do you need it for?"

This is what the CPA proposes. To shake us down, not just this year, but for five consecutive years. And what will the advocates of CPA do with our money? They don't know. They want to take our money without even bothering to tell us how it will be spent. What would you say if the School Committee did that? Or the Recreation Department? Or the police department?

Why should the conservation commission and the historic and housing agencies get special treatment?

Why should they be allowed to tax us to build up a slush fund for projects that we can't even evaluate?

Why should they be allowed to circumvent the same budget process that all of our other town agencies have to submit to?

Fellow citizens, the Community Preservation Act is a blight on the integrity of municipal budgeting. It dangles what appears to be "free" money in front of the uninformed with the proviso that it only be used for:
    
* open space,
* recreational development,
* "community" housing, or
* historic preservation.

Those might seem to be worthy causes to many, but we're still paying for Wilson. We have a high school that has to be re-built and that project will dwarf Wilson. We have a major overhaul at Kennedy, we have a huge snow removal deficit, we have a parking garage in the middle of the town that has collapsed. We have underpaid teachers and municipal workers, and we have taxpayers who are stretched to the limit.

Many of us have made significant contributions to disaster relief during the past year. Some of us are out of work. Some of us have sick or disabled relatives. Our gas and oil bills have skyrocketed.

At a time when many of us need tax relief, CPA is offering us a five-year tax hike. The minimum that the average family would pay over that period would be $175. It could be a lot more.

Where is the need for the CPA tax? No one has explained that to me. There has been no documentation whatsoever of the need for the fund here in Natick.

Proponents just say it will be good for Natick, but how can they know it will be good when they don't even know what the money would be spent on? Why are they afraid to put a specific CPA budget in front of us?

In the case of open space there can be no documentation of need. With the expansion of the Natick Mall, the town is going to have at least $4 million and as much as $7 million in the Open Space Fund. With these funds, the town will be in excellent shape to obtain and preserve Open Space. Taxpayers shouldn't be asked to pay a single dime more for this purpose.

Of course, each parcel of open space that gets acquired and exempted from development makes community housing more problematic as well as permanently removing tax generating land from the town's grand list. Community housing efforts recently have also generated costly litigation for the town. Do we really want to tax ourselves to fund projects that only benefit lawyers?

The easiest, cheapest, and most effective way to create affordable housing in Natick, by far, is not to buy land or buildings but to legalize in-home apartments. We don't need to pile one tax on top of another to increase Natick's affordable housing stock.

Our historic preservation agencies are co-conspirators in this plan to rob the truly needy of Natick. They have no master plan for their share of the CPA slush fund. But they want to evade the standard budget process and take our money anyway.

And what about recreation? Why should it get a higher priority than education or road maintenance or emergency services?

The sole attraction of CPA is that it proposes to match whatever local surtax we agree to with state funding. The problem is that the money really comes out of your pockets. In fact it is already coming out of your pockets. Every time someone buys a house in Natick or refinances a house in Natick they are unwittingly paying into the CPA fund. We've already kicked in hundreds of thousands of dollars to this state slush fund and we didn't even vote for it! 

An op-ed column a few weeks ago in the Bulletin & Tab implied that support for CPA is nearly unanimous. It's not. The state's largest city, Boston, rejected CPA. The vote wasn't even close. Seventy percent of our neighbors in Framingham voted against CPA. Our neighbors to the south, Dover and Sherborn, both voted overwhelmingly against CPA. In November, the voters of Watertown rejected CPA. Again, the vote wasn't even close. The advocates of CPA pretend that those votes never happened.

I urge you to reject the CPA on March 28. Say no to "free" money. Say no to slush funds. Say no to pork. Say no to this fiscal Ponzi scheme. By doing so, you will be saying yes to fiscal integrity and honest budgeting. And you will be giving local budget officials the flexibility they need to serve all Natick residents, not just the special interests that would benefit from CPA.

Jeff Silverstein, Natick

[top of page]

Natick Bulletin & TAB
Letter: CPA deserves voters' support

Friday, March 10, 2006

To the Editor:

I am writing in support of the CPA for the Town of Natick. There has been some confusion about the purpose of the Community Preservation Act.

Natick needs the CPA to preserve open space and to allow for high density development where it makes sense. In 2003, Natick Town Meeting rezoned parts of Natick Center to create the HOOP district, in hopes of attracting developers to construct affordable, high-density housing where it would have minimal impact on traffic and town services.

More housing will eventually come to Natick Center, but what we are seeing is that the HOOP district incentives are insufficient in and of themselves, and that most developers are more immediately attracted to promises of larger profits by developing large parcels of open space. Natick's current lack of affordable housing leaves us vulnerable to large housing developments, such as two that are being proposed for land off of Rockland and South Main Streets.

In a recent op-ed piece, candidate for selectman Ben Greenberg claimed that we do not need the CPA because "Today Natick is planning over 100 new affordable housing units."

What he fails to mention is that those 100 units are being proposed in tandem with 300 market-rate units, for a total of 400 new units. Such a radical increase in density in this neighborhood will inevitably impact traffic, schools, and other town services.

The developer's current plans make no effort to mitigate these impacts on the neighborhood, and in fact do not call for widening or improving roads or for the placement of additional traffic signals.

Towns that have passed the CPA have found that it gives them leverage to negotiate the location and scope of proposed housing developments. 

Natick needs the CPA to counter these and future projects that threaten to alter the character of the town and overburden municipal services. We cannot afford to wait as our stock of open space is rapidly dwindling and once gone, cannot be replaced.

Please support the CPA and Vote YES on March 28!

[top of page]

Natick Bulletin & TAB
Letter: CPA Connects with Natick

Friday, March 10, 2006
To the editor:

On March 28, Natick residents will vote on the Community Preservation Act, a law that challenges us to acknowledge how deeply interconnected everything is in our community.

Some have asked, in a time when Natick is facing budgetary pressures, why should we be considering any tax increase at all to protect open space, historic projects, and housing? Wouldn't it be wiser to invest in schools, public safety, and other town services at present levels?

The answer is that failure to invest in open space, housing, historic projects, and recreation compounds budget problems throughout the town. We need to move from thinking about open space, housing, and history as "nice to haves" and begin to recognize them as integrally connected to everything we cherish about our town, both the aesthetic aspects of our quality of life and our financial ability to support that quality of life.

Our failure to provide adequate affordable housing in our community makes us vulnerable to large Chapter 40B developments, like the ones proposed for land off of South Main Street. If these two new developments go forward as planned and bring 400 units of new housing to town, they will stress schools and roads. If we had the CPA in place, we could buy back some of that land, and negotiate more effectively with the developer to reduce the scope of that proposed development.

As another example, drafty exterior windows in the historic Johnson School are draining off heat. The Town's capital plan calls for replacing them with more energy-efficient ones, which would save on fuel costs. These projects (and many others around town) are eligible for CPA funds. Moreover, because the state matches local funds dollar for dollar, Natick taxpayers will end up paying only half the cost of these eligible projects.

The CPA also builds in a mechanism for integrated planning and prioritization of the town's needs, through the establishment of a Community Preservation Committee. What could be wiser, in a time when budgets are tight? Finally, the CPA is well integrated into the town's budgeting and review process. Proposals for use of CPA funds are developed through hearings and consensus building by the CPC, then must be vetted by the Selectmen and FinCom before being formulated as a warrant article and going to town meeting for further scrutiny and passage.

If we're really concerned about protecting the town's infrastructure and funding essential services, then the smartest thing we could do is to pass the CPA, qualify for state matching funds, and take some of the competitive pressure out of the budgeting process. Over 100 Massachusetts cities and towns have already done that.

I urge you to vote YES on Question 1 on March 28.

Laura Senier, Natick

[top of page]

Natick Bulletin & TAB
Letter: CPA insures home values

Friday, March 10, 2006

To the editor:

With housing prices currently on the decline - the National Association of Realtors said used home sales slipped 2.8 percent in January, the fourth straight drop and 5 percent below January 2005 - how can local homeowners protect the value of their property?

One way is to join the growing list if local municipalities who have adopted the Community Preservation Act. By voting yes for the CPA when you go to the polls in Natick on March 28th (See www.natickcpa for all the details.) you will be securing the long-term value of your own home. You will also be confirming your support for open space and habitat protection, historic preservation and new playing fields - all the amenities (along with good schools) sought by younger homebuyers.

However you view them, towns with strong and enduring home valuations like Needham, Newton, Sudbury, Wayland and Wellesley have opted to protect and preserve their natural and historic heritage with the CPA. In doing so they have created a process, both in fact and perception, that makes their communities attractive to home buyers.

Those with young children make home purchasing decisions on school quality, but they also buy on quality of life. So do those seeking larger homes for expanded families. Similarly, "Empty Nesters" seeking the quiet and safety of the suburbs look for walking trails, architectural uniqueness and local character, all aspects of Natick life that will be enhanced with CPA funds.

For those who anticipate selling a home in the next few years voting for the CPA makes common sense. With market prices dropping precipitously across the state and nation, anything that holds the line against decreasing values is a plus.

Suppose your own home is on the market today, or might be next year. A 10 percent drop in a home priced at $400,000 is about $40,000. Adding $30 a year to the tax bill of the typical Natick home (the estimated CPA add-on) means the cost of attaching downside price protection to your residence will be less than 1 percent of the hypothetical loss you might experience in the current selling climate. 

You and your community will benefit from the CPA, as well as families of limited means who will qualify for housing built or financed with CPA funds!

Real estate market cycles tend to play themselves out over a five- to seven-year period. Why not build in some common sense, low-cost price protection for your most valuable asset while giving back to your neighbors and friends? You and your community will benefit from the CPA, as well as families of limited means who will qualify for housing built or financed with CPA funds!

Vote yes for the CPA when you go to the polls on March 28.

Peter Golden, Natick

[top of page]

* The Natick Community Preservation Alliance does not endorse the opinions expressed in letters opposing the CPA, but provides them in the interest of fairness.

Natick Bulletin & TAB
Letter: Candidate responds to letter writers

Friday, March 10, 2006

To the editor:

This letter is in response to three letters last week that mischaracterized my position regarding the CPA.

Steve Gartrell wrote that I was "irresponsible" for pointing out the fact that CPA funds are "unavailable for the needs of [Newton], despite pleas from teachers, picketing fire personnel, and growing public safety concerns." The truth is that Newton is facing a growing fiscal crisis - some people are even calling for a tax hike just to pay to keep Fire Engine 6 on the road! In the meantime, according to Newton's Community Preservation Committee's FY06 Plan, Newton has $5million dollars locked in its CPA fund and waiting for a good idea.

Michael Rourke wrote that I said that "Newton regrets reserving funds for CPA vs. spending that money on operating expenses." The truth is that I said no such thing. I did say that "the CPA is no panacea," and that "while funds are limited, I would prefer to spend money on the new high school." Our budget is tight and we should spend the money we already have in the Open Space Fund before raising our taxes.

Jason Makofsky wrote that he disagrees with me that affordable housing "shouldn't be one of our most important priorities." He should be ashamed. Not only did I not say that, but I have consistently emphasized the importance of affordable housing and if elected I will work with developers to achieve what Natick has not yet been able to do.

I believe that Natick needs to be proactive in addressing the important issues, and that is why I'm running for Selectman. I want everything the CPA stands for, but I don't believe that the CPA is the best way to accomplish our goals - to me, it is an unnecessary tax. However, I agree that the decision needs to be made by the entire town.

No matter how you feel about the CPA, we should all work to keep the debate fair and honest, and we should all be sure to vote on March 28!

Ben Greenberg, Candidate for Natick Selectman

[top of page]

Letter: Increase stock of affordable housing

To the editor:

In response to the interview with Ben Greenberg in last week's paper ["Should Natick adopt the Community Preservation Act?" page 3], I would like to provide some additional information to help inform Natick voters who may still have questions about the CPA.

Contrary to Mr. Greenberg's assertion, CPA funds are not "collected in the same way as other Town revenue," since up to half of CPA funds come from the state. I only wish that Mr. Greenberg was correct since, if Natick's entire budget was funded like the CPA, we would get 50 percent of our revenue from the state instead of the current 9 percent, and our property tax bills would be cut in half!

Also, while it is true that the Natick Mall will pay $4.2 million (not $7 million, as Mr. Greenberg stated in the article) into the open space fund, this money can't be spent on affordable housing or historic preservation, as CPA funds can. This was one reason why the CPA study committee formed by Town Meeting recommended adopting the CPA with only a 1 percent surcharge, rather than 2 or 3 percent. Further, the Conservation Commission has carefully considered a number of proposals for spending this money since the fund was created six years ago with a one-time infusion from TJX.

A few years ago the Commission spent $500,000, and was able to leverage an additional $250,000 from the state to preserve 13 acres off Winter Street. Another $250,000 was recently earmarked for new playing fields at the gravel pit. Numerous smaller projects have also been funded, including easements for walking trails, conservation restrictions, and new trees for Natick Common. This fund was even used to help pay for the dredging of Jennings Pond in 1999, again leveraging state funds.

Finally, Natick is not "planning" over 100 new affordable housing units as Mr. Greenberg asserts. Rather, a few ambitious developers are forcing Natick residents to accept these huge projects, only 25 percent of which are actually affordable, despite the zoning laws our town has enacted to control development and preserve our community.

I disagree with Mr. Greenberg when he states that keeping some housing in Natick affordable for a family of four earning less than $66,000 per year shouldn't be one of our most important priorities. Supporters of the CPA believe that providing housing that is priced within reach of our teachers, firemen, and our neighbors' sons and daughters, while at the same time taking back the power to enforce our local zoning bylaws is one of our most important priorities.

Jason Makofsky, Co-chair, Natick Community Preservation Alliance, (Makofsky is also the Treasurer of the Natick Conservation Commission)

[top of page]

Statements mischaracterize CPA success

To the editor:

I write to respond to an Editorial in your paper recently written by Selectman candidate Ben Greenberg regarding the CPA Question on the Natick ballot March 28th ["Should Natick adopt the Community Preservation Act?" page 3, Feb. 24].

I was surprised at the lack of understanding of local tax levy concepts reflected in the editorial by Ben Greenberg and especially the lack of accuracy related to the use and success of the Newton CPA program. Most people in Newton acknowledge the statewide recognition of Newton's CPA as a model of good fiscal planning and the wise use of matching state funds to achieve critical local capital improvements. Over $7 million from state funds and another $11 million from private sources have been invested in Newton's infrastructure through the CPA.

One only needs to look at the innovative purchase and development partnership at Kessler Woods, a 40-plus acre site, using 50 percent state funds from the CPA and significant developer money to provide smart growth planning on a critical piece of open space - Makes you wonder what might have been with Natick's two development nightmares now looming over the Town if the CPA were in place in Natick two or three years ago?

Ben says Newton regrets reserving funds for CPA vs. spending that money on operating expenses or collective bargaining agreements? The CPA has in fact allowed the city to direct tax funding to maintain excellent public services including schools with SAT's among the highest in the State, outstanding public safety services for residents including designation as the country's safest city the last two years, ranking in the top 10 fire departments. in Massachusetts in response time in a Globe Study last year, and continued excellence in a library system that is No. 2 in circulation in the state.

This all happens with the outstanding performance of teachers, police officers, firefighters, librarians and other municipal employees who are paid a fair wage, have competitive benefits and have agreed to collective bargaining agreements with the city into 06. The exception is firefighters whose issues are non-economic.

Newton's CPA has funded much needed improvements to the Senior Center, school playgrounds and athletic facilities and parks at 12 different sites, restored valued public buildings including an historic library and City Hall, and provided critical affordable housing units for 81 families within the city.

Ben Greenberg simply didn't do his homework in this matter.

My only regret is that Natick, my hometown, didn't have the foresight to leverage thousands of dollars of state funds, private development investments and grant programs over the past five years, to relieve local taxpayers of some of the burden and demand for critical capital improvements, and reasonable housing programs which would have allowed our sons and daughters to remain in the Home of Champions, the otherwise outstanding Town of Natick!!

It is not too late!! There are several good reasons to vote for a CPA in Natick.

1. We have a need to address affordable housing for Natick famil